faf_get_orchestration_policy

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark it read-only and closed-world, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the exact return object keys and that no orchestrator execution or side effects occur. It stops short of documenting error or fallback behavior, so a 4 rather than 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the key distinction and return shape. Every clause adds scope or output information, with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, yet the description supplies the return shape and the tool's read-only, non-executing nature. Annotations cover safety and the schema covers the single parameter, so the definition is complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is one optional path parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents it. The description does not mention the path parameter or add syntax beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Introspect') and resource ('effective orchestration policy'), and explicitly positions itself against sibling faf_orchestrate_recommendation by saying it does not run the orchestrator. An agent can tell what it does and how it differs from the alternative without opening schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Says when to use it (to see what the next faf_orchestrate_recommendation call would use without running it) and what it excludes (no drift detection, no signals, no receipt). It names the sibling relationship directly, leaving no ambiguity about the alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.